Cosmology is difficult because space, time and the sizes of cosmological things are at scales vastly larger and smaller than are easily perceived by human beings. To guess what the universe is like requires extrapolations. But extrapolations are based on the assumption that what we can witness, see and measure corresponds to what we can’t witness, can’t see and can’t measure. Is cosmology science? Is it a science-in-waiting? Does cosmology become science when its ideas are confirmed by astronomy?
It is a science, in that its theories are based on mathematics, physics theories and astronomy observations. Certain parts of cosmology, such as the Big Bang and the fact that the geometry of the Universe appears to be Euclidean, are almost as certain as anything else in science. Other parts, such as the existence of dark energy, exactly how Inflationary theory works, string theory, brane theory and the like are more speculative, and whether any one of them will prove to be more or less correct or even useful remains to be seen. But that is true in all parts of science. There are always more questions than answers, and a host of theories that try to solve the questions, most of which prove to be wrong.
So although there are parts of any discussion of cosmology that should be taken with a very large grain of salt, it is as valid a science as most.
Cosmology is science by two condition: 1) the base of cosmological model must be observable dates; 2) cosmological model must be calculated in frames of mathematical base. It can be Riemannian geometry as in General Relativity. But cosmological models in frames of GR must be solutions of the field equations (Einstein equations). It is impossible built models where strong mathematical base absents.
Yes, to some extent where physics, chemistry and particularly mathematics holds true. Beyound that, cosmology is more of a sign than science!
RS: Does cosmology become science when its ideas are confirmed by astronomy?
Most of current cosmology is based on previous astronomy so in that sense could be considered confirmed.
Cosmology beyond that should be considered speculative but it generally lies in the details. The boundary for robust cosmology is arguably at the end of the putative era of inflation.
“It is a science-in-waiting?”
Because, from a materialist dialectical point of view the cosmos and the universe is potentially knowable to a limited extent; even though it is infinite, eternal and ever-changing. It is because for dialectics, the finite and the infinite are in a contradiction of the unity of the opposite – the finite IS the infinite and vice versa! So far we have some general sense that this contradiction resolves itself continuously in the never-ending development in time and extension in space of the universe.
The infinite space is adorned with the drama of things “coming into being” and “passing out of existence” in each of the innumerable island universes; each island universe with innumerable galaxies and each galaxy in turn with innumerable stars and planets. Under favourable conditions, galaxies propagate the stars produce the higher elements; the planets give rise to the evolution of molecules, to organic life and finally to the thinking brain through which infinite Nature (for a brief period of time) becomes conscious of itself!
The knowledge of the infinite is therefore proportional to the knowledge of the finite. In fact, one sun with its planets and its life supporting earth and one Milky Way galaxy with its surrounding family group form the essential basis for an understanding of the universe. Beyond 15 billion light years there is no wonderland or lurking monsters to be seen. What we will see there is more or less the same we now see within a few million light years around us!
Article Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies*
Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...
So far though, official cosmology is replete with mathematics based, mystery and sensation seeking theories and Fairy Tales, motivated by theological and financial imperatives of certain interest groups, rather than a rigorous scientific enterprise for seeking positive knowledge. Like old days, axiomatic and esoteric theories cooked up in the brain of individual thinkers are substituted for positive knowledge. These Fairy Tales, like the "Big Bang" creation of the universe in the finite past and full of ominous cosmic monsters etc., are passed off as scientific knowledge with contrived “proofs”; in desperate efforts to make this fantastic cosmology credible.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Am_I_the_only_one_that_is_doubtful_of_LIGOs_detection_of_gravitational_wave_GW150914
Dear Larissa Borisova: Could you please explain why cosmology has to be expressed via Einstein GR equations? Einstein GR equations ,as any partial differential equations ( PDEs), from the point of math, are LOCAL OBJECTS which quite well describe LOCAL phenomena if they are supplied with BOUNDARY and INITIAL conditions. What are boundary and initial conditions for the infinite Universe knows perhaps the God only , but I doubt the God communicated it to Einstein. Applications of LOCAL tools for analysis of NON LOCAL infinite domains is simply a misunderstanding. PDEs were tools of 19 century developed for solving local problems .Einstein use them because he he had nothing more at his hand at that time . So his modeling of the entire Universe via PDSs is just a garbage resulting in Big Bang and other idiotic conclusions.
The big-bang cosmology is a religion. It is based on the redshift of distant galaxies, and its key doctrine is the statement “there is no known mechanism for a photon to lose energy”. For this statement to be sensical, one should of course know something about photons. What do modern scientist know about photons?
The best way to find out is a direct question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/273032/what-exactly-is-a-photon/273069. The essences of the two top-rated answers are as follows:
1. The word photon is one of the most confusing and misused words in physics. Probably much more than other words in physics, it is being used with several different meanings and one can only try to find which one is meant based on the source and context of the message.
2. So when it comes to a strictly ontological answer to the question "What is a photon?" we need to be honest and say that we don't really know.
It is possible to formulate a steady state cosmology on the assumption that photons are soliton vortices, and that they propagate as coherent regions not in a vacuum, but in a noncoherent, turbulent background of electromagnetic energy. This background has vorticity at infinitely small scales, and this is to which photons slowly lose their energy.
The background is turbulent simply because every infinitesimal region of space receives photons (at smaller and smaller scales) from all directions.
The number one question of cosmology “Could you please explain why cosmology has to be expressed via Einstein GR equations?”, by J. G. von Brzeski, should be directed to every big bang cosmologist.
Yes. Learning about the formation and development of other constellations, planetary systems, other exoplanets on which life may exist allows you to expand the resources of knowledge about the formation of the planet Earth and the origin of life on our planet. It is pure science.
Thank you, Greetings,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Robert Shour > "Is cosmology a science?"
The problem with modern cosmology is that the mathematical idealism-based axiomatic and esoteric theories of both Old and "New" Physics, including Einstein’s theories of relativity; stand in the same relation to the modern epoch; as Ptolemy's Epicycles were to medieval Europe. It necessarily follows that a Copernican type revolution is necessary if natural science and humanity have to make further progress and advance! If not; like an abandoned building, modern society will continue to slowly rot and decay (we already see it in process), one brick at a time; but will keep its wretched existence until capable subjective forces demolish the old structure and build a new one in its place!
But this new revolution, necessarily has to be more profound and a much more protracted and difficult a task for humanity to achieve; because it would involve a revolutionary change of the world-view on which modern science and society is based! As the great Einstein said, “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” (“Probleme kann man niemals mit derselben Denkweise lösen, durch die sie entstanden sind”). Please see:
Article The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and I...
Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...
This quote is from:
Peebles, P. J. E.. (2020), Cosmology’s Century: An Inside History of Our Modern Understanding of the Universe (p. 349). Princeton University Press.
"Cosmology is an empirical construction, with data ranging from systematic programs of measurements designed for cosmology to unintended byproducts, such as the excess noise in microwave radiometers (Section 4.4.2), the observation of absorption from the first excited level of the interstellar molecule CN (Section 4.4.1), and the curiously large abundance of helium (Section 4.3.1). Data and ideas about their interpretation can be misleading".
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Books